Factors affecting measures of activities and participation in persons with mobility impairment

Disability and Rehabilitation

Volumn 31, Issue 20, 2009, Pages 1633-1642

  Wee, Joy ^a   Lysaght, Rosemary ^a  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

contextual factors; mobility impairments; Outcome measures

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTHRITIS; ARTICLE; BRAIN INJURY; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DISABILITY; DISABLED PERSON; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; POLIOMYELITIS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SPINAL CORD INJURY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHRITIS; BRAIN INJURIES; DISABILITY EVALUATION; DISABLED PERSONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; MUSCULAR DYSTROPHIES; POLIOMYELITIS; SPINAL CORD INJURIES;

EID: 75349099597     PISSN: 09638288     EISSN: 14645165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09638280902736346     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
2. Wee JYM. Adjusting expectations after spinal cord injury across global settings: a commentary. Disabil Rehabil 2006;28:659-661. (Pubitemid 43738893)
3. Alander DH, Parker J, Shannon SE. Intermediate-term outcome of cervical spinal cord-injured patients older than 50 years of age. Spine 1997;22:1189-1192. (Pubitemid 27259831)
4. Liem NR, McColl MA, King W, Smith KM. Aging with a spinal cord injury: factors associated with the need for more help with activities of daily living. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:1567-1577. (Pubitemid 39349397)
5. Noreau L, Fougeyrollas P, Boschen KA. Perceived influence of the environment on social participation among individuals with spinal cord injury. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 2002;7:56-72. (Pubitemid 34087021)
6. Morgan D. Effect of incongruence of acute myocardial infarction symptoms on the decision to seek treatment in a rural population. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2005;20:365-371.
7. Rosswurm MA. Nursing perspective on the health care of rural elders. Geriatr Nurs 2001;22:231-233. (Pubitemid 33077505)
8. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J 1965;14:61-65.
9. Wee J, Schwarz R. An international comparative study assessing impairment, activities, and participation in spinal cord injury rehabilitation-a pilot study. Asia Pac Disabil Rehabil J 2004;15:43-53.
10. Whiteneck GG, Harrison-Felix CL, Mellick DC, Brooks CA, Charlifue SB, Gerhart KA. Quantifying environmental factors: a measure of physical, attitudinal, service, productivity, and policy barriers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:1324-1335. (Pubitemid 39024435)
11. Keysor JJ, Jette AM, Haley SM. Development of the home and community environment (HACE) instrument. J Rehabil Med 2005;37:37-44. (Pubitemid 40214507)
12. Hutchinson SA. Chapter 6, Grounded theory: the method. In: Munhall PL, Boyd CO, editors. Nursing research: a qualitative perspective. 2nd ed. New York: National League for Nursing Press; 1993. pp 180-212.
13. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-mental state: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12:189-198.
14. Maxwell J. Designing a qualitative study. In: Bickman L, Rogers DJ, editors. Handbook of applied social research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1997. pp 69-100.
15. Creswell JW. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2003. pp 18-21.
16. Morse JM. The significance of saturation. Qual Health Res 1995;5:147-149.
17. Caracelli VJ, Greene JC. Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educ Eval Policy Anal 1993;15: 195-207.
18. Finch E, Brooks D, Stratford PW, Mayo NE. editors. Physical rehabilitation outcome measures: a guide to enhanced clinical decision making. 2nd ed. Toronto, ON: Canadian Physiotherapy Association, BC Decker Incorporated; 2002.
19. Wellwood I, Dennis MS, Warlow CP. A comparison of the Barthel index and the OPCS disability instrument used to measure outcome after acute stroke-UK office of population censuses and surveys. Age Ageing 1995;24:54-57.
20. Valach L, Signer S, Hartmeier A, Hofer K, Steck GC. Chedoke-McMaster stroke assessment and modified Barthel index self-assessment in patients with vascular brain damage. Int J Rehabil Res 2003;26:93-99. (Pubitemid 36819932)
21. van Brakel WH, Anderson AM, Mutatkar RK, Bakirtzief Z, Nicholls PG, Raju MS, Das-Pattanayak RK. The participation scale: measuring a key concept in public health. Disabil Rehabil 2006;28:193-203. (Pubitemid 43250490)
22. Wee J, Paterson M. Chapter 3. Exploring how factors impact the activities and participation of persons with disability-constructing a model through grounded theory. In: Wee J, editor. Factors affecting activities and participation in persons with disabilities-informing models and measures [dissertation]. Kingston, ON: Queen's University; 2007. pp 39-151.
23. Electronic Citation. Library and Archives Canada, or Queen's University, Canada. https://qspace.library.queensu.ca/handle/1974/1242
24. Wee J, Paterson M. Exploring how factors impact the activities and participation of persons with disability-constructing a model through grounded theory, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 14, Number 1, in press.
25. Electronic Citation. http://www. nova.edu/ssss/QR/index.html
26. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Contingent and discriminant validation by multitrast-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 1959;56:81-105.
27. Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:702-709.
28. Bryman A. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?. Qual Res 2006;6:97-113. (Pubitemid 43650776)
29. Norris D. Issues in producing data for rural areas: a Canadian perspective. Paper presented at the First International Rural Aging Conference, WV, 2000 (cited in Havens).
30. Whiteneck G, Tate D, Charlifue S. Predicting community reintegration after spinal cord injury from demographic and injury characteristics. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999;80:1485-1491. (Pubitemid 29526648)
31. Blazer DG, Landerman LR, Fillenbaum G, Homer R. Health services access and use among older adults in North Carolina: urban vs. rural residents. Am J Public Health 1995;85:1384-1390.
32. Burge FI, Lawson B, Johnston G. Where a cancer patient dies: the effect of rural residency. J Rural Health 2005;21:233-238. (Pubitemid 41557478)
33. Hart LG, Larson EH, Lishner DM. Rural definitions for health policy and research. Am J Public Health 2005;95:1149-1155. (Pubitemid 40880862)
34. Havens B, Stloukal L, Racher F, Norris D, Keefe J, Coppin A. Finding and using rural aging data: an international perspective. J Rural Health 2001;17:350-355. (Pubitemid 34139782)
35. Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care. Measuring remoteness: accessibility/remoteness index of Australia (ARIA), revised edition. Occasional papers. AUS: 2001; 14 p 1-19.
36. Electronic Citation http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing. nsf/content/health-pubs-hfsocc-ocpariew14a.htm/$FILE/ocpanew14.pdf. Last accessed 30 September 2005
37. Ocana-Riola R, Sanchez-Cantalejo C. Rurality index for small areas in Spain. Soc Indic Res 2005;73:247-266. (Pubitemid 41194430)
38. Dunn PA. The impact of the housing environment upon the ability of disabled people to live independently. Disabil Handicap Soc 1990;5:37-52.
39. Boschen KA. Variables affecting independent living for persons with physical disabilities, final report. Toronto, ON: Human Resources Development Canada; 1994.
40. Wee J. The social dimensions of human disability across global settings [abstract]. In: Proceedings of CCIH/CCGHR 13th Canadian Conference on International Health;. October 2006; Ottawa, ON.
41. Cieza A, Brockow T, Ewert T, Amman E, Kollerits B, Chatterji S, Ustün TB, Stucki G. Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. J Rehabil Med 2002;34:205-210.
42. Gray DB, Hollingsworth HH, Stark SL, Morgan KA. Participation survey/mobility: psychometric properties of a measure of participation for people with mobility impairments and limitations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87:189-197. (Pubitemid 43151292)
43. National Rehabilitation Reporting System, Canadian Institute for Health Information. updated 10 October 2008. Electronic Citation. http://secure.cihi. ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw1/4 services-nrs-e. Last accessed 3 November 2008
44. Meyers AR, Andresen EM. Enabling our instruments: accommodation, universal design, and access to participation in research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;81(Suppl. 2):S5-S9.